Top
Begin typing your search above and press return to search.
Top Stories

Supreme Court Monthly Digest: September 2020

Akshita Saxena
30 Oct 2020 4:35 AM GMT
Supreme Court Monthly Digest: September 2020
x

Important Judgments/ Orders: 1. [Anti-Dumping Duty] Judicial Review Should Not Be Exercised Virtually As A Continuous Oversight Of Designated Authority Functions: SC Order dated September 1, 2020 Judicial review should not be exercised virtually as a continuous oversight of the DA's functions, observed the bench comprising Justices Arun Mishra, Vineet Saran and S. Ravindra...

Your free access to Live Law has expired
To read the article, get a premium account.
    Your Subscription Supports Independent Journalism
Subscription starts from
599+GST
(For 6 Months)
Premium account gives you:
  • Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.
  • Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
Already a subscriber?

Important Judgments/ Orders:

1. [Anti-Dumping Duty] Judicial Review Should Not Be Exercised Virtually As A Continuous Oversight Of Designated Authority Functions: SC

Order dated September 1, 2020

Judicial review should not be exercised virtually as a continuous oversight of the DA's functions, observed the bench comprising Justices Arun Mishra, Vineet Saran and S. Ravindra Bhat while setting aside orders passed by Telengana High Court issuing directives to Designated Authority. Vide these orders, the High Court had issued specific directions for anti-dumping investigation into articles imported from European Union, initiated contempt against Designated Authority and also directed the replacement of the incumbent DA.

[Case: The Designated Authority v. The Andhra Petrochemicals Ltd.]

2. [Giving & Fabricating False Evidence] Private Complaints Alleging Offences U/Sec 191 & 192 IPC Not Maintainable When It Is Committed In Relation To Court Proceedings: SC

Order dated September 2, 2020

The Supreme Court held that a private complaint under Section 190 of CrPC cannot be filed alleging offences under Section 191 (Giving false evidence) and 192 (Fabricating false evidence) of IPC, even if false evidence is created outside the Court premises. The bench comprising Justices RF Nariman and Navin Sinha observed that the offence punishable under these sections does not have to be committed only in any proceeding in any Court but can also be an offence alleged to have been committed in relation to any proceeding in any Court.

[Case: M/S Bandekar Brothers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr v. Prasad Vassudev Keni]

3. [Article 226] Writ Petition Not Maintainable Against Judicial Order Passed By High Court: SC

Order dated September 3, 2020

The Bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and KM Joseph held that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution would not be maintainable in order to challenge an order which has been passed by the High Court in the exercise of its judicial powers. In this case, the petitioner had filed a domestic violence complaint before Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, which was dismissed. The appeal against this order was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. The High Court also dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner. The petitioner assailed this order passed by the High Court by filing a writ petition under Article 226 with a prayer to declare the judgment of the Single Judge 'void'. Later, this writ petition was transferred to Apex Court.

[Case: Neelam Manmohan Attavar v. Manmohan Attavar (D) Thr LRs]

4. Serving Judicial Officers Cannot Club Their Previous Experience As Advocates To Claim Eligibility For Elevation As HC Judges: SC

Order dated September 4, 2020

The Supreme Court observed that serving Judicial Officers cannot invoke Explanation (a) of Article 217 of the Constitution of India to club with their judicial service, the experience that they had at the Bar before joining judicial service, to claim eligibility for considering them for elevation as High Court judges. The bench comprising Chief Justice SA Bobde, Justices AS Bopanna and V. Ramasubramanian observed that such a benefit of clubbing can be allowed only to a person who held a judicial office and later became an advocate.

[Case: R. Poornima & Ors. v. UOI & Ors.]

5. Prevention Of Food Adulteration Act - No Violation Of Labelling Regulations If Relevant Information Traceable From Barcode: SC

Order dated September 4, 2020

The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices RF Nariman, Navin Sinha and Indira Banerjee quashed a prosecution for alleged violation of Rule 32(e) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 after noting that the relevant information about the batch of the product was available in the barcode affixed to it. Rule 32 mandates that every package of food should carry a label giving out information about the manufacturer, batch of the product, description of the food and its ingredients etc.

[Case: Raghav Gupta v. State (NCT Delhi)]

6. Motor Accident Claims - Compensation For 'Loss Of Consortium' Can Be Awarded To Children And Parents Also: SC

Order dated September 7, 2020

The Supreme Court observed that, in Motor Accident Compensation Claims, consortium can be awarded to children and parents also. The bench comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan and R. Subhash Reddy was considering appeals have been filed by three Insurance Companies viz. New India Assurance Company Limited, Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd. and The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. questioning the judgments of the High Courts arising out of the award by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) with regard to the compensation awarded in favour of the claimants under two heads, i.e., "Loss of Consortium" and "loss of love and affection.

[Case: The New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Somwati]

7. Criminal Prosecution On Same Allegations Cannot Continue If Exoneration In Departmental Proceedings Is On Merits: SC

Order dated September 8, 2020

The Supreme Court reiterated that, in case of exoneration in departmental proceedings on merits and where the allegation is found to be not sustainable at all and the person held innocent, criminal prosecution on the same set of facts and circumstances cannot be allowed to continue. Standard of proof in a departmental proceeding, being based on preponderance of probability is somewhat lower than the standard of proof in a criminal proceeding where the case has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, observed the bench headed by Justice RF Nariman in a judgment.

[Case: Ashoo Surendranath Tewari v. Deputy Superintendent Of Police, EOW, CBI]

8. Bangalore Club Not Liable To Pay Wealth Tax, Holds Supreme Court

Order dated September 8, 2020

The Supreme Court held that 'Bangalore Club', one of the oldest club in Bangalore, is not liable to pay Wealth tax under the Wealth Tax Act. The bench comprising Justices RF Nariman, Indira Banerjee and Navin Sinha set aside the Karnataka High Court judgment which had held otherwise. "The Bangalore Club is an association of persons and not the creation, by a person who is otherwise assessable, of one among a large number of associations of persons without defining the shares of the members so as to escape tax liability. For all these reasons, it is clear that Section 21AA of the Wealth Tax Act does not get attracted to the facts of the present case", the Court held.

[Case: M/S Bangalore Club v. The Commissioner of Wealth Tax & Anr.]

9. Considerations On Account Of Delay & Limitation Ought Not To Negate The Right Of Appeal Inhering In An Accused: SC

Order dated September 8, 2020

The considerations on account of delay and limitation ought not to negate the right of appeal inhering in an accused, the Supreme Court remarked. In this case, the accused was convicted in a murder case and was sentenced to life imprisonment. The appeal filed by him before the Odisha High Court was dismissed on the ground of delay of 1192 days in preferring the appeal. Later, the Supreme Court, taking note of the fact that the matter was not considered on merits, set aside the High Court order and remitted the appeal back to it.

While dismissing the review petition, the bench comprising Justices Uday Umesh Lalit and Indu Malhotra observed thus: "In a criminal matter, where the life and liberty of a person is in question, one right of appeal has always been accepted and appropriate steps must be taken to effectuate that right. The considerations on account of delay and limitation ought not to negate the right of appeal inhering in an accused."

[Case: State of Odisha v. Surendra Munda]

10. Death Occurred Due To Single Stab Injury Can Also Attract Section 302 IPC (Murder): SC

Order dated September 9, 2020

The Supreme Court observed that even in cases when death occurs due to single stab injury, Section 302 of the IPC (Murder) can be attracted. There is no hard and fast rule that in a case of single injury Section 302 IPC would not be attracted, said the bench comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy and MR Shah while disposing a Criminal Appeal.

[Case: Stalin v. State]

11. Punishment Of Dismissal From Service Is Not Disproportionate To 'Corrupt' Employee: SC

Order dated September 10, 2020

The punishment of dismissal is not disproportionate to corrupt employee, observed the Supreme Court while dismissing the appeal of a CISF officer dismissed from service for indulging in corruption. The bench comprising Justices NV Ramana, S. Abdul Nazeer and Surya Kant observed that charges such as corruption, misappropriation and gross indiscipline are grave and ought to be dealt with strictly.

[Case: Pravin Kumar v. UOI]

12. NDPS Trial Is Not Vitiated Merely Because Ownership Of Vehicle From Which Contraband Was Seized Is Not Established: SC

Order dated September 10, 2020

The Supreme Court observed that to prove the case under the NDPS Act, the ownership of the vehicle from which the contraband is seized is not required to be established. What is required to be established and proved is the recovery of the contraband articles and the commission of an offence under the NDPS Act, the bench comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan, MR Shah and R. Subhash Reddy said. The Court also reiterated that examination of independent witnesses is not an indispensable requirement and such non examination is not necessarily fatal to the prosecution case.

[Case: Rizwan Khan v. State of Chattisgarh]

13. Make Advance Tax Ruling System More Comprehensive As A Tool For Settlement Of Disputes, SC Tells Centre

Order dated September 11, 2020

The Supreme Court recommended to the Central Government to consider the efficacy of the advance tax ruling system and make it more comprehensive as a tool for settlement of disputes. The bench of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Indu Malhotra observed that one of the largest areas of litigation for the Government is taxation matters and the petition rate of the tax department before the Supreme Court is at 87%. The court said that a vibrant system of Advance Ruling can go a long way in reducing taxation litigation.

[Case: National Cooperative Development Corporation v. Commissioner of Income Tax]

14. Section 50 NDPS Act Applicable Only In The Case Of Personal Search, Reiterates SC

Order dated September 15, 2020

Section 50 of the NDPS Act is applicable only in the case of personal search, the Bench comprising of Justices Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy and MR Shah reiterated while affirming the conviction of an accused who was a temple priest. The bench referred to a three-judge bench judgment in State of H.P. v. Pawan Kumar which considered the issue whether the safeguards provided by Section 50 of NDPS Act, regarding search of any "person" would also apply to any bag, briefcase or any such article or container etc., which is being carried by him.

[Case: Jeet Ram v. Narcotics Control Bureau]

15. Major Unmarried Daughter Not Suffering From Any Physical Or Mental Abnormality Not Entitled To Claim Maintenance From Father U/s 125 Of CrPC: SC

Order dated September 15, 2020

The Supreme Court held that a daughter who attained majority and is still unmarried is not entitled to claim maintenance from her father in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. if she is not suffering from any physical or mental abnormality/injury. The bench headed by Justice Ashok Bhushan held that unmarried Hindu daughter can claim maintenance from her father till she is married relying on Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions & Maintenance Act, 1956, provided she pleads and proves that she is unable to maintain herself, for enforcement of which right her application/suit has to be under Section 20 of Act.

[Case: Abhilasha v. Parkash]

16. Arbitration -Enforcement Court May Refuse Enforcement Of Foreign Award, But Cannot Set Aside Or Correct It: SC

Order dated September 16, 2020

The Supreme Court, in Vedanta case, observed that though enforcement courts may "refuse" enforcement of a foreign award, if the conditions contained in Section 48 of the Arbitration Act are made out, but it cannot set aside or correct a foreign award, even if such conditions are made out. The above observations were made by the bench headed by Justice S. Abdul Nazeer while disagreeing with the view expressed by the High Court that a foreign award is enforceable on its own strength, and is not necessarily dependent on whether or not it goes through the process of Section 48 proceedings. The bench, also comprising Justices Indu Malhotra and Aniruddha Bose observed that, it is only after the stages of Sections 47 and 48 are completed, the award becomes enforceable as a deemed decree, as provided by Section 49.

[Case: Govt of India v. Vedanta Ltd.]

17. Limitation Period For Filing Petition For Enforcement Of Foreign Award Would Be Governed By Article 137 Of Limitation Act: SC

Order dated September 16, 2020

The Supreme Court held that the period of limitation for filing a petition for enforcement of a foreign award under Sections 47 and 49 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, would be governed by Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 which prescribes a period of three years from when the right to apply accrues. The bench comprising Justices S. Abdul Nazeer, Indu Malhotra and Aniruddha Bose observed that a party may file an application under Section 5 for condonation of delay in filing the petition for enforcement of foreign award as the bar contained therein which excludes an application filed under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the CPC, would not be applicable to a substantive petition filed under the Arbitration Act, 1996.

[Case: Government of India v. Vedanta Ltd.]

18. 'Ten Times Penalty' Prescribed For Deficit Stamp Duty Cannot Be Mechanically Imposed: SC

Order dated September 17, 2020

The Supreme Court observed that the penalty of ten times prescribed under Section 40(1) (b) of the Indian Stamp Act cannot be mechanically imposed. The reason such as fraud or deceit in order to deprive the or undue enrichment are relevant factors to arrive at a decision as to what should be the extent of penalty under Section 40(1)(b), the bench comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan, MR Shah and R. Subhash Reddy observed.

[Case: Trustees of HC Dhanda Trust v. State of Madhya & Ors.]

19. [Motor Accidents Claims] Compensation For Loss Of Future Prospects Can Be Awarded In Cases Of Permanent Disablement Also: SC

Order dated September 17, 2020

The Supreme court observed that compensation for loss of future prospects can be awarded in cases of permanent disablement incurred as a result of a motor accident. The bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao, Krishna Murari and S. Ravindra Bhat disagreed with the Delhi High Court view that addition in income towards "future prospects" can only be given in case of death, and not for injury. It observed that that the Courts should not adopt a stereotypical or myopic approach, but instead, view the matter taking into account the realities of life, both in the assessment of the extent of disabilities, and compensation under various heads.

[Case: Pappu Deo Yadav v. Naresh Kumar]

20. SC Order Extending Limitation Period Does Not Enlarge The Period Upto Which Delay Can Be Condoned In Exercise Of Statutory Discretion: SC

Order dated September 18, 2020

Clarifying its 23 March order, the Bench of CJI SA Bobde, Justices AS Bopanna and V. Ramasubramanian observed that the said order extended only "the period of limitation" and not the period upto which delay can be condoned in exercise of discretion conferred by the statute. The Court held that the expression "prescribed period" appearing in Section 4 of the Limitation Act cannot be construed to mean anything other than the period of limitation.

[Case: In Re: Extension of Limitation]

21. Relief Of Specific Performance Of Contract Is No Longer Discretionary After 2018 Amendment: SC

Order dated September 18, 2020

Relief of specific performance of a contract is no longer discretionary, after the 2018 amendment, observed the Bench comprising Justices UU Lalit and Indira Banerjee in an appeal arising out of a specific performance suit. Though the case involved interpretation of Specific Relief Act prior to 2018 amendment, the bench observed thus:

"After the amendment of Section 10 of the S.R.A., the words "specific performance of any contract may, in the discretion of the Court, be enforced" have been substituted with the words "specific performance of a contract shall be enforced subject to ...". The Court is, now obliged to enforce the specific performance of a contract, subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 11, Section 14 and Section 16 of the S.R.A. Relief of specific performance of a contract is no longer discretionary, after the amendment."

[Case: B. Santhoshamma v. D. Sarala]

22. SC Upholds Maharashtra High Power Committee's Categorization Of Prisoners For Temporary Release Due To Covid-19

Order dated September 22, 2020

The Supreme Court dismissed the National Alliance for People's Movements plea challenging the decision of the High Power Committee in Maharashtra to classify categories of prisoners who will be released on emergency parole. The present option provided is only as a solution to help decongestion and to avoid the spread of virus. At the same time the benefit granted in such circumstance cannot be to the detriment of social order by releasing all categories of prisoners irrespective of the categorisation to be made depending on the severity of the crime etc., the bench comprising Chief Justice SA Bobde, Justice AS Bopanna and Justice V. Ramasubramaniam said.

[Case: National Alliance for People's Movements v. State of Maharashtra]

23. [Motor Accident Compensation] Insurer Not Liable Unless Vehicle Owner Proves That He Took Reasonable Care To See That His Driver Renewed Driving Licence Within Time: SC

Order dated September 23, 2020

When an employer employs a driver, he has to take reasonable care to see that his employee gets his licence renewed within time, the Supreme Court has observed. The bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Aniruddha Bose and Krishna Murari observed that, when the driver did not renew his licence, the insurance employee cannot be held liable unless the owner proved that he had either checked the driving licence or had given instructions to his driver to get his driving licence renewed on expiry thereof.

[Case: Beli Ram v. Rajinder Kumar]

24. Time Of Publication Of E-Gazette Is Significant For Determining The Enforceability Of Notifications: SC

Order dated September 23, 2020

The Supreme Court observed that the precise time when the gazette is published in the electronic mode is significant for determining the enforceability of the notifications. The bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud, KM Joseph and Indu Malhotra observed thus while upholding a Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment which had allowed the writ petitions filed by various importers.

[Case: Union of India v. M/S G S Chatha Rice Mills]

25. Rape - Misconception Of Fact About Promise To Marry Has To Be In Proximity Of Time To The Occurrence: SC

Order dated September 28, 2020

The Bench comprising Justices Rohinton Fali Nariman, Navin Sinha and Indira Banerjee, in its judgment acquitting a man accused of raping a woman on the pretext of marriage, observed that misconception of fact arising out of promise to marry has to be in proximity of time to the occurrence and cannot be spread over a long period of time coupled with a conscious positive action not to protest.

The allegation by the Prosecuterix in this case was that the accused Maheshwar Tigga has been promising to marry her and on that pretext continued to establish physical relations with her as husband and wife. It was also alleged that she had also stayed at his house for fifteen days during which also he established physical relations with him. The Trial Court convicted him under sections 376, 323 and 341 of IPC. The Karnataka High Court dismissed his appeal.

[Case: Maheshwar Tigga v. The State of Jharkhand]

26. Circumstances Not Put To An Accused Under Section 313 CrPC Cannot Be Used Against Him: SC

Order dated September 28, 2020

While acquitting a rape accused, the bench headed by Justice RF Nariman reemphasized the importance of putting all relevant questions to an accused under Section 313 CrPC. The circumstances not put to an accused under Section 313 of CrPC cannot be used against him, and must be excluded from consideration, he observed.

[Case: Maheshwar Tigga v. The State Of Jharkhand]

27. No Inherent Right To Compassionate Appointment, Reiterates SC

Order dated September 29, 2020

There cannot be any inherent right to compassionate appointment, the Supreme Court has reiterated in a judgment. A Three Judge bench headed by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul observed that the compassionate appointments has to be in terms of the applicable policy as existing on the date of demise, unless a subsequent policy is made applicable retrospectively.

The court allowed an appeal filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh against the High Court judgment which had directed it to grant compassionate appointment to the son of an employee, who was working as a Driver in the Tribal Welfare Department. The state, in its appeal, contended that the employee was employed as a work-charged/contingency employee in the Tribal Welfare Department and was thus not entitled to the compassionate appointment as per the existing policy on the date of his demise.

[Case: State of Maharashtra v. Amit Shrivas]

28. Words "Tries An Offence" Are More Appropriate Than The Words "Tries An Offender" In Section 461(l) CrPC, Says SC

Order dated September 30, 2020

The words "tries an offence" are more appropriate than the words "tries an offender" in section 461 (l), the Supreme Court opined while considering a Transfer Petition filed on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. Justice V. Ramasubramanian observed that there seems to be some incongruity between Section 461(l) and Section 462 of the CrPC.

Under Clause (l) of Section 461 if a Magistrate not being empowered by law to try an offender, wrongly tries him, his proceedings shall be void. However, under Section 462, no finding, sentence or order of any Criminal Court shall be set aside merely on the ground that the inquiry, trial or other proceedings in the course of which it was arrived at or passed, took place in a wrong sessions division, district, sub­ division or other local area, unless it appears that such error has in fact occasioned a failure of justice.

[Case: Kaushik Chatterjee v. State of Haryana]

29. Not Necessary That Accused Must Be Actively Involved In Physical Activity Of Assault To Convict Him On The Ground Of Common Intention: SC

Order dated September 30, 2020

The Supreme Court has observed that it is not necessary that an accused must be actively involved in the physical activity of assault to convict him on the ground of common intention. A common intention to bring about a particular result may also develop on the spot as between a number of persons deducible from the facts and circumstances of a particular case, a three-judge bench comprising Justices RF Nariman, Navin Sinha and Indira Banerjee observed.

[Case: Subed Ali v. The State of Assam]

30. [Section 406 CrPC] Criminal Cases Cannot Be Transferred On The Ground Of Lack Of Territorial Jurisdiction Even Before Evidence Is Marshalled: SC

Order dated September 30, 2020

The Supreme Court has that transfer of criminal cases cannot be ordered under Section 406 of the CrPC on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction even before evidence is marshalled. Justice V. Ramasubramanian observed (i) that the issue of jurisdiction of a court to try an "offence" or "offender" as well as the issue of territorial jurisdiction, depend upon facts established through evidence (ii) that if the issue is one of territorial jurisdiction, the same has to be decided with respect to the various rules enunciated in sections 177 to 184 of the Code and (iii) that these questions may have to be raised before the court trying the offence and such court is bound to consider the same.

[Case: Kaushik Chaterjee v. State of Haryana]

31. Length Of Sentence Or Gravity Of Original Crime Cannot Be Sole Basis For Refusing Premature Release: SC

Order dated September 30, 2020

Length of the sentence or the gravity of the original crime can't be the sole basis for refusing premature release, the Supreme Court observed while directing release of two convicts on probation. The Three Judge Bench headed by Justice NV Ramana observed that any assessment regarding predilection to commit crime upon release must be based on antecedents as well as conduct of the prisoner while in jail, and not merely on his age or apprehensions of the victims and witnesses.

[Case: Satish @ Sabbe v. State of Uttar Pradesh]

Other Developments:

1. SC Grants 10 Years Period For Telecos To Clear AGR Dues; First 10% To Be Paid By March 2021

Order dated September 1, 2020

The Supreme Court held that the telecom companies who are liable to pay AGR dues shall make payment of 10% of the dues by March 31, 2021. A bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra rejected the prayer of the Department of Telecommunication seeking payments by telecom companies in a staggered fashion spanning over 20 years and instead allowed the telcos to make payments in a period spanning 10 years.

Court further held that "In case of any default in making payment of annual instalments, interest would become payable as per agreement along with the penalty and interest on penalty and would be punishable by contempt of court." On the issue of whether spectrum can be a subject matter of resolution process, the Justice Mishra led bench stated that it has asked the NCLT to decide the same.

Also Read: AGR Case : SC Asks DoT To Complete Assessment Of Liability In Cases Of Spectrum Trading

[Case: UOI v. Association of Unified Telecom Service Providers of India]

2. 'Where Do We Draw The Line?': SC Dismisses Plea By Women Officers Completing 14 years In Service After Cut-Off Date For Extension Of Commission

Order dated September 3, 2020

The Supreme Court dismissed a plea filed by women officers who completed 14 years in service after the cut-off date applicable in the judgment dated February 17 directing that Permanent Commission should be granted to women in army regardless of their service, in all the ten streams. A bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, KM Joseph & Indu Malhotra observed that to allow the plea for a batch of officers who had completed 14 years in March 2020 for acquiring eligibility to avail permanent commission and other benefits would have serious implications.

[Case: Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Babita Puniya]

3. "Has Become A Trend Now": SC Stays Disciplinary Proceedings Against Madhya Pradesh District Judge On Account Of Sexual Harassment Allegations

Order dated September 4, 2020

The Supreme Court issued notice & also stayed disciplinary proceedings against a Senior District Judge from Madhya Pradesh on account of sexual harassment charges levelled against him by a woman judicial officer in 2018. A bench of Chief Justice SA Bobde, Justices AS Bopanna & V. Ramasubramaniun while issuing notice on the petition remarked that filing complaints against judges had become a "trend" and that it was a deplorable practice.

[Case: Shambhoo Singh v. HC Madhya Pradesh]

4. Tablighi Jamaat Foreigners- SC Allows Transfer of Pending Trials in UP; Directs HC to Designate Specific Courts for Expeditious Disposal

Order dated September 4, 2020

The Supreme Court allowed the consolidation of multiple FIRs from Uttar Pradesh against foreign nationals for their alleged involvement in Tablighi Jamaat activities and agreed to transfer pending trials before specified courts. The Bench comprising of Justices AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and Sanjiv Khanna ordered the State Government to approach the Principal Bench of Allahabad High Court with an application to decide which, and how many, courts would take up the trials pending across various zones in UP. The Court also directed the High Court to identify the specific court(s) within a period of one week where all the matters may be listed for hearing.

Latest Development: [Tablighi Jamaat] Cases From All Over UP To Be Transferred To 3 Districts; To Be Decided Within 8 Weeks: Allahabad HC

[Case: M. Hadrami v. UOI]

5. SC Asks Centre To Justify Validity Of Provision In Mental Health Care Act Decriminalising Attempt To Suicide [Section 309 IPC]

Order dated September 11, 2020

The Supreme Court issued notice to the Attorney General for India in a plea wherein the Petitioner sought for directions to ensure the prevention of attempts to commit suicide by persons who threw themselves in animal enclosures in Zoos. The Bench comprising of CJI SA Bobde, Justices AS Bopanna and V. Ramasubramanian further sought for an explanation from the Centre on the conflict between Section 115 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, and Section 309 of IPC.

[Case: Red Lynx Confederation v. Union of India & Ors.]

6. SC Rejects SBI Plea Seeking Vacation Of Stay On Insolvency Proceedings Against Anil Ambani

The Supreme Court declined to vacate a stay, earlier granted by Delhi High Court towards the ongoing IBC proceedings against Reliance Group Chairman Anil Ambani. A bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta & S. Ravindra Bhat asked the petitioner bank (State Bank of India) to complete proceedings before the High Court and seek modification as prayed for, adding that the case will be taken up before the Delhi High Court on October 6. The plea comes in light of an order passed by the Delhi High Court staying the IBC proceedings against Ambani in terms of an INR 1200 crore loan, disbursed by SBI to two of Ambani's firms. The SBI invoked personal guarantee in terms of the same but a Division Bench of Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Rajneesh Bhatnagar restricted Anil Ambani from alienating his assets till the next date of hearing.

[Case: SBI v. Anil Ambani]

7. SC Quashes NLSIU's Decision To Hold NLAT; Directs It To Admit Students Based On CLAT

The Supreme Court quashed the decision of NLSIU, Bengaluru to hold a separate admission test by way of NLAT. The University was directed by a bench of Justices Ashok Bhushan, R Subhash Reddu & MR Shah, to admit students for the present academic year (2020-21) based on the scores of the CLAT.

[Case: Rakesh K Agarwalla & Anr. v. NLSIU, Bengaluru & Ors.]

8. "Surprised That HC Should Act in the Teeth of Our Order": SC Sets Aside Allahabad HC Order Granting Interim Bail To Govt. Counsel Accused Of Rape

The Supreme Court set aside the interim order dated 03.09.2020 of the Allahabad High Court wherein the High Court had granted interim bail to a government counsel in connection to a rape case lodged against him by a young lawyer. The Order has been passed by a bench comprising Justice RF Nariman, Justice Navin Sinha and Justice Indira Banerjee while hearing an SLP against the HC order

[Case: XXXX v. State of UP & Anr.]

9. SC Urges Centre & States To Provide Monetary Assistance, Rations To Sex Workers Without Insisting On Identity Proof

The Supreme Court directed Centre & State Governments to provide food and financial aid to sex workers in a plea highlighting the distress faced by them on account of the ongoing pandemic. A bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao & Hemant Gupta urged the Centre and State Government to urgently consider providing them relief in the form of dry rations, monetary assistance as well as masks, soaps and sanitizers without insisting on proof of identity.

Latest Development: Supreme Court Directs States To Ensure Supply Of Dry Ration To Sex Workers

[Case: Budhadev Karmaskar v. UOI]

Supreme Court Monthly Digest: August 2020

Supreme Court Monthly Digest: July 2020

Supreme Court Monthly Digest: June 2020

Supreme Court Monthly Digest: May 2020

Supreme Court Monthly Digest : April 2020

Supreme Court Monthly Digest : March 2020

Supreme Court Monthly Digest : February 2020

Supreme Court Monthly Digest : January 2020

Next Story
Share it